journal of management 1996 podsakoff 259 98

8/11/2019 Journal of Management 1996 Podsakoff 259 98

1/41

http://jom.sagepub.com/Journal of Management

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/22/2/259

Theonline version of this article can be foundat:

DOI: 10.1177/0149206396022002041996 22: 259Journal of Management

Philip M. Podsakoff, Scott B. MacKenzie and William H. BommerCitizenship Behaviors

Determinants of Employee Satisfaction, Commitment, Trust, and OrganizationalTransformational Leader Behaviors and Substitutes for Leadership as

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Southern Management Association

can be found at:Journal of ManagementAdditional services and information for

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/22/2/259.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Apr 1, 1996Version of Record>>

by guest on June 17, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on June 17, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/content/22/2/259http://jom.sagepub.com/content/22/2/259http://www.sagepublications.com/http://southernmanagement.org/http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jom.sagepub.com/content/22/2/259.refs.htmlhttp://jom.sagepub.com/content/22/2/259.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jom.sagepub.com/content/22/2/259.full.pdfhttp://jom.sagepub.com/content/22/2/259.full.pdfhttp://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jom.sagepub.com/content/22/2/259.full.pdfhttp://jom.sagepub.com/content/22/2/259.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://southernmanagement.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/content/22/2/259http://jom.sagepub.com/


2/41

Journal of Management

1996. Vol. 22, No. 2. 259-298

Trans form ational Leader Behavio rs

and Subs t i tutes for Leadersh ip as

Determ inants of Employee Satisfact ion

Comm itment Trust and Organizat ional

Cit izenship Behaviors

Philip M. Podsakoff

Scott B. MacKenzie

Indiana University

William H. Bommer

Southern Illinois University at Carbondale

The goal of this study was to examine the effects of transforma-

tional leadership behaviors, within the context of Kerr and Jermiers

1978) substitutes for leadership. Data were collected from 1539

employees across a wide variety of different industries, organizational

settings, and job levels. Hierarchical moderated regression analysis

procedures generally showed thatfew of the substitutes variables moder-

ated the effects of the transformational leader behaviors on followers

attitudes, role perceptions, and in-role and citizenship behaviors in

a manner consistent with the predictions of Howell, Dorfman and Kerr

1986). However, the results did show that: a) the transfotntational

leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership each had unique effects

on follower criterion variables; b) the total amount of variance

accounted for by the substitutes for leadership and the transformational

leader behaviors was substantially greater than that reported in prior

leadership research; and c) several of the transformational behaviors

were significantly related to several of the substitutes for leadership

variables. Implications of these findings for our understanding of the

effects of transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leader-

ship are then discussed.

During the past decade and a half, two rather distinct lines of theory and research

have emerged in an attempt to improve our ability to understand leadership effec-

tiveness. One of these approaches focuses on the identification and examination of

those leader

behaviors

that influence followers values and aspirations, activate

Direct all correspondence to: Philip M. Podsakoff, Indiana University, Department of Management, School of

Business, Bloomington, IN 47405.

Copyright 0 1996 by J AI Press Inc. 0149 2063

259

by guest on June 17, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/


3/41

260

PODSAKOFF, MACKENZIE AND BOMMER

their higher-order needs, and arouse them to transcend their own self-interests for

the sake of the organization (Bass, 1985; Yukl, 1989a, 1989b). These trunsfomza-

tional or charismatic behaviors are believed to augment the impact of

transactional1 forms of leader behavior on employee outcome variables, because

followers feel trust and respect toward the leader and they are motivated to do

more than they are expected to do (Yukl, 1989b, p. 272). Examples of this new

focus on leadership include the work of Bums, Bass, House, and others (cf. Avolio

& Bass, 1988; Bass, 1985; Bass, Avolio & Goodheim, 1987; Bass, Waldman,

Avolio & Bebb, 1987; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Boa1 & Bryson, 1988; Bums, 1978;

Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977; House, Spangler & Woycke, 1991; House,

Woycke & Fodor, 1988; Howell & Frost, 1989; Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993;

Tichy & DeVanna, 1986). Although these approaches differ somewhat from each

other, as noted by Pod&off, MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter (1990), the majority

of them share the common perspective that by articulating a vision of the future of

the organization, providing a model that is consistent with that vision, fostering the

acceptance of group goals, and providing individualized support, effective leaders

change the basic values, beliefs, and attitudes of followers so that they are willing

to perform beyond the minimum levels specified by the organization.

Research on the transformational leadership paradigm has proven to be rather

promising. For example, Bryman (1992) cites a variety of organizational studies

demonstrating that transformational leader behaviors are positively related to

employees satisfaction, self-reported effort, and job performance. Similar results

have been reported in several field studies (cf. Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass, Avolio

& Goodheim, 1987; Bass, Waldman, Avolio & Bebb, 1987; Bennis & Nanus,

1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, Spangler & Woycke, 1991; House,

Woycke & Fodor, 1988; Roberts, 1985; Trite & Beyer, 1986) from a variety of

samples and organizational settings. In addition, in a laboratory study designed to

examine the relative impact of directive leader behavior versus charismatic leader-

ship behavior (which is considered by many to be a form of transformational

leadership behavior), Howell and Frost (1989) found that charismatic leader

behavior produced higher performance, greater satisfaction, and greater role clar-

ity, than directive leader behavior.

Almost concurrently with the emergence of the transformational approach to

leadership, but not necessarily related to it, has been an increased interest in Kerr

and Jermiers (1978) substitutes for leadership model. According to this

approach, the key to improving leadership effectiveness is to identify the situa-

tional variables that can either substitutefor, neutralize, or enhance the effects of

a leaders behavior. Included among variables that have been identified by Kerr

and Jermier (1978) as potential substitutes for leadership are four subordinate char-

acteristics (ability, experience, training, and knowledge; need for independence;

professional orientation; and indifference to organizational rewards), three tusk

characteristics (task feedback; routine, methodologically invariant tasks; intrinsi-

cally satisfying tasks), and six organizational characteristics (organizational

formalization; organizational inflexibility; group cohesiveness; amount of advi-

sory/staff support; rewards outside the leaders control; and the degree of spatial

distance between supervisors and subordinates). Unlike the transformational

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 22, NO. 2, 1996



4/41

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND SUBSTITUTES AS DETERMINANTS OF OCBs

261

approach to leadership, which assumes that it is the leaders transformational

behavior that is the key to improving leadership effectiveness, the substitutes for

leadership approach assumes that the real key to leadership effectiveness is to iden-

tify those important situational or contextual variables that may substitute for the

leaders behavior, so that the leader can adapt his or her behavior accordingly.

The substitutes model has attracted a great deal of research interest (cf.

Howell & Dorfman, 1981, 1986; Jermier & Berkes, 1979; Kerr & Jermier, 1978;

Pod&off, MacKenzie & Fetter, 1993; Pod&off, Niehoff, MacKenzie & Will-

iams, 1993; Podsakoff, Todor, Grover & Huber, 1984; Sheridan, Vredenburgh &

Abelson, 1984). However, the results of this research suggest that the substitutes

variables behave somewhat differently than expected by Kerr and his colleagues

(cf. Howell, Dorfman & Kerr, 1986). Consistent with other situational approaches

to leadership, the basic assumption made by Kerr and his colleagues (cf. Howell et

al., 1986) is that the substitutes for leadership variables have their primary effects

on subordinate criterion variables through their interactions with the leader behav-

iors of interest. That is, the substitutes variables are predicted to moderate the

relationships between leader behaviors and subordinate criterion variables.

However, recent research (cf. Pod&off, MacKenzie & Fetter, 1993; Podsakoff,

Niehoff, MacKenzie & Williams, 1993) designed to test these predictions has not

been all that supportive. For, in spite of the fact that the substitutes for leadership

had a number of important main effects, and accounted for a large proportion of the

variance in the criterion variables, relatively few of the substitutes had moderating

effects consistent with those predicted by Howell et al., (1986).

Thus, the existing empirical evidence does not appear to be very supportive

of the substitutes for leadership model, at least in terms of their moderating effects.

This might suggest that they have little impact on the effects of leadership.

However, such a conclusion is premature, because several studies (cf. Farh, Podsa-

koff & Cheng, 1987; Pod&off, MacKenzie & Fetter, 1993; Pod&off, Niehoff,

MacKenzie & Williams, 1993) have found that the substitutes for leadership vari-

ables are significantly related to many forms of leader behavior (as well as to the

criterion variables). This suggests that any structural model designed to examine

the impact of a leaders behavior on subordinate attitudes, role perceptions, and

performance, that does not include both the substitutes for leadership, and the leader

behaviors, is misspecified and will produce biased estimates of the effects of the

leaders behavior, since the substitute variables are significantly correlated with the

leader behaviors, and with the criterion variables. This implies that much of what

we know about the impact of leader behavior on subordinate criterion variables

could be inaccurate, due to the omission of the substitutes for leadership variables.

Whether this is true or not depends upon the extent to which the substitute variables

are correlated with the leadership behaviors of interest, and the criterion variables.

Potential Effects of Substitutes for Leadership on the Impact of

Transformational Leader Behaviors

Interestingly, these two major streams of research have never been merged,

even though there is good reason to expect that the substitute variables may influ-

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 22, NO. 2. 1996



5/41

262


ence the impact of transformational leader behaviors. In their original paper, Kerr

and Jermier (1978) proposed a set of substitutes for leadership variables that they

believed would generally moderate the impact of a leaders behavior on subordi-

nate criterion variables. Their first test of the model quite naturally focused on the

dominant forms of leader behaviors extant at that time (e.g., relationship-oriented,

supportive, and people-centered leader behaviors; and task-oriented, instrumental,

and job-centered leader behaviors). However, from the beginning, Kerr and Jerm-

ier (1978) clearly intended their model to be more broadly applicable, Since Table

1 is derived from previously conducted studies, substitutes are only suggested for

the two leader behavior styles which dominate the research literature. The substi-

tutes construct probably has much wider applicability, however, perhaps

to. . .leadership in general. (p. 378). Consistent with this interpretation, Farh,

Pod&off and Cheng (1987), Podsakoff, Todor, Grover and Huber (1984), Podsa-

koff, MacKenzie and Fetter (1993), and Podsakoff, Niehoff, MacKenzie and

Williams (1993), applied the model to various forms of leader reward and punish-

ment behavior, and Sheridan, Vredenburgh and Abelson (1984) applied it to

decision making, informational, and interpersonal forms of leader behavior. Thus,

the substitutes model was originally intended to be, and has been, applied to a

broad range of leader behaviors.

However, the substitutes model has never been applied to transformational

leadership, even though there is reason to suspect that the substitute variables may

moderate the impact of some forms of transformational leadership behavior. For

example, in their original specification of the model, Kerr and Jermier (1978)

explicitly proposed that substitutes for leadership should moderate the impact of

supportive leader behavior, which is regarded by many as a form of transforma-

tional leadership (cf. Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass, 1985; Bass, Avolio & Goodheim,

1987; Bass, Waldman, Avolio & Bebb, 1987; Conger & Kanungo, 1987). This

hypothesis subsequently found partial support in the work of Dobbins and Zaccaro

(1986) who found that group cohesiveness moderates the impact of individualized

support on employee satisfaction.

Similarly, one might expect the impact of high performance expectations,

providing an appropriate model, and articulating a vision, to be moderated by

group cohesiveness, because group members may set expectations for performance

and appropriate behavior, and possibly even have a different vision than that of the

leader. It is also possible that the impact of a leaders high performance expecta-

tions, providing an appropriate model, and articulating a vision, may be moderated

by the extent to which he or she is perceived to control important organizational

rewards. Banduras (1977) research suggests that modeling the appropriate behav-

ior will only be effective when a leader can reward subordinates for exhibiting the

desired behavior. By a similar logic, followers may be less likely to move in the

articulated direction, or meet high performance expectations, if they do not believe

their leaders will be able to reward them for it. Task feedback might also be

expected to have a similar effect on the impact of these behaviors, based on Locke

and Lathams (1990) review of a number of studies showing that feedback gener-

ally enhanced the effect that goal setting (high performance expectations) had on

task performance.




6/41

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND SUBSTITUTES AS DETERMINANTS OF OCBs 263

The impact of fostering the acceptance of group goals and intellectual stimu-

lation might also be moderated by some of the substitutes for leadership. For

example, followers who like to work alone, and have a high need for independence,

may be particularly immune to attempts on the part of a leader to foster the accep-

tance of group goals. In addition, continually pressuring subordinates to re-think

the way they do their work (intellectual stimulation) may be quite effective for

subordinates with a low need for independence, and quite irritating and ineffective

for subordinates with a high need for independence. This may help explain why the

effects of intellectual stimulation have been positive in some cases (Bass, 1985),

and negative in others (Pods&off, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter, 1990). Thus, it

may be that the impact of each of the forms of transformational leader behavior

previously identified in the leadership literature may be moderated by one or more

of the substitutes for leadership.

Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to determine the potential

effects that substitutes for leadership have on the relationships between transfor-

mational leader behaviors and followers attitudes, role perceptions, and

performance. More specifically, we will examine: (a) the main efsects of the trans-

formational leader behaviors in the context of the effects of the substitutes for

leadership, and (b) the moderating e fsects of the substitutes for leadership on the

relationships between the transformational leader behaviors and the follower crite-

rion variables. This will help us to determine whether the effects of

transformational leadership are as context-free as many suppose them to be, and

whether previous estimates of the effects of transformational leader behaviors on

these criterion variables have been biased by the omission of the substitutes

variables.

It is important to note that, in addition, this study will also examine the effects

of transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership on a more

comprehensive set of performance measures. The majority of studies on transfor-

mational leadership behaviors have focused on the effects that these behaviors

have on in-role performance, rather than on extra-role or organizational citi-

zenship behaviors OCBs, Organ, 1988). However, as noted by Podsakoff et al.

(1990), even though the effects of transformational leadership on in-role perfor-

mance are important, they may not be as important as the effects of

transformational leadership on extra-role and/or citizenship behavior. Others have

recognized this as well. Indeed, Boa1 and Bryson (1988, p. 11) argue that the

essence of transformational leadership is that such leaders ...lift ordinary people

to extraordinary heights; Yukl(1989b, p. 272) argues that they cause subordinates

to

. .do more than they are expected to do; Bass (1985) says that they get people

to perform beyond the level of expectations; and House et al. (1988, p. 100)

claim that these leaders motivate their subordinates to perform above and beyond

the call of duty. Taken together, this suggests that transformational leadership

may have a number of important effects on extra-role or organizational citizenship

behaviors. The same is true of substitutes for leadership. Recent research by Podsa-

koff, Niehoff, MacKenzie and Williams (1993) and Pod&off, MacKenzie and

Fetter (1993) has documented the linkage between substitutes for leadership and




7/41

264

PODSAKOFF. MACKENZIE AND BOMMER

OCBs or extra-role behavior. Consequently, organizational citizenship behaviors

were included as a key criterion variable in this study.

Sample

Method

Measures of leader behaviors, job attitudes, and role perceptions for this study

were collected from 1539 employees, and matching performance data were

collected for 1200 of them from their managers.?

A portion of the data was previously published in a study by Pod&off and

MacKenzie (1994a), which examined the psychometric properties of the substitutes

for leadership scales. However, that study did not include transformational leader

behaviors or examine their impact on the criterion variables included in this study,

nor

did

it examine the impact of substitutes

or

leadership on these criterion variables,

or the interaction of the substitutes and transformational leader behaviors.

The majority of the respondents held white collar, managerial, and profes-

sional positions. The sample was drawn from multiple divisions of several large

companies located throughout the U.S. and Canada. In an attempt to increase the

variability of the substitutes measures, the sample was chosen from a wide range

of industries (printing, automotive vehicles and parts, office furniture products,

banks, diversified financial services, petroleum refining, chemical, pharmaceuti-

cal, electronics, photographic, information services, home appliances, pulp and

paper, recycling, office products, computer services, electrical equipment, plastic

products, and food industries), organizational levels (entry level through CEOs and

presidents), and from companies of varying size (from 10 million dollars to

Fortune 100 size), some of whom had both foreign and domestic operations. While

the industries in which these organizations operate vary, all of these companies are

comparable in that they are all large, publicly-held firms, consisting primarily of

well educated, professional employees. More specifically, 63.4% of the subjects

possessed a four-year college degree or higher, and 70.7% were either managerial

or technical/professional employees. Almost forty percent (38%) were members of

a professional association or society at the time of the survey. The respondents had

an average age of 36.5 years, average company tenure of 11.3 years, and an average

tenure of 2.9 years under their present supervisor.

Procedure

Survey questionnaires were administered to the respondents from each

sample in their work settings during normal working hours, or respondents were

allowed to take the survey home to complete if they so chose. Included with each

packet was a letter from the researchers indicating the general nature of the survey,

and assuring all respondents that their individual responses would remain anony-

mous. Also included with each survey was a stamped envelope, addressed directly

to the researchers. The sample size of 1539 represents a return rate of 91%.

Predictor Variables

Transformational Leader Behaviors.

Podsakoff et al.s (1990) transfor-

mational leadership behavior inventory (TLZ) was used to assess the leader

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 22. NO. 2, 1996



8/41

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND SUBSTITUTES AS DETERMINANTS OF OCBs

265

behaviors measured in the study. This scale is designed to measure six key dimen-

sions of transformational leadership that have been identified in the research

literature (cf. Bass, 1985; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Bradford & Cohen, 1984; Conger

& Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Tichy & DeVanna,

1986). The dimensions are: articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model,

fostering the acceptance of group goals, high performance expectations, providing

individualized support, and intellectual stimulation. Previous research using this

scale generally supported the hypothesized factor structure; however, three of the

dimensions (articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, and fostering

the acceptance of group goals) were found to be highly intercorrelated. In view of

the fact that Pod&off et al.s study is the only one that has empirically examined

the scales properties, it is important to confirm the scales psychometric properties

in the present study.

Substitutes for Leadership.

The 13 substitutes for leadership constructs

identified by Kerr and Jermier ( 1978) were measured with the 4 1-item scale devel-

oped by Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Fetter (1993). This scale has been shown to

possess generally good psychometric properties, and to correlate with other vari-

ables in a manner that is consistent with its nomological net (cf. Podsakoff &

MacKenzie, 1994a; Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Fetter, 1993).

Criterion Variables

Eleven criterion variables were examined in the current study. Five of these

criterion variables (General Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, Trust, Role

Clarity, and Role Conflict) were self-report measures. The other six criterion vari-

ables (employee in-role performance, altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy,

civic virtue, and sportsmanship) were behavioral measures provided by the super-

visors of each of the respondents.

Employee or Self-) Assessed Criterion Variables.

General Satisfaction

was measured with the 20-item short form of the Minnesota Satisfaction Question-

naire (MS&; Weiss, Dawis, England & Lofquist, 1967). The MSQ has been shown

to possess generally good psychometric properties (cf. Gillet & Schwab, 1975;

Price & Mueller, 1986; Weiss et al., 1967), and correlates well with other measures

of job satisfaction (cf. Gillet & Schwab, 1975; Wanous, 1974). Organizational

Commitment was measured with the 15-item scale developed by Porter, Steers,

Mowday, and Boulian (1974). This scale is designed to assess the relative strength

of an employees identification with and involvement in the organization

(Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979). Previous research (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990;

Porter et al., 1974; Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979) has demonstrated that this 15-

item scale possesses adequate psychometric properties. Trust in and loyalty to the

leader was assessed with the six item scale used by Podsakoff et al. (1990). Their

research has shown that: (a) all of the items load on the intended factor, (b) a one-

factor model fit the data very well, and (c) the scale had a very acceptable internal

consistency reliability (.90). Finally, shortened versions of Rizzo, House and Lirtz-

mans (1970) scales were used to assess employees role clarity and role conflict.

The role clarity and role conflict scales contained six and eight items, respectively.

The reduced item versions of Rizzo et al.s. (1970) scales have been widely used,

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 22, NO. 2. I996



9/41

266


and generally positive evidence exists on both their reliability and validity (cf.

House, Schuler & Levanoni, 1983; Schuler, Aldag & Brief, 1977).

Manager Assessed Criterion Variables. The six behavioral measures

provided by the respondents supervisors were intended to capture both in-role

and extra-role aspects of subordinates performance. In-role pegormance was

defined as those activities that an employee is expected to perform to meet the

prescribed requirements of the job, and was measured with a 4-item scale devel-

oped by Williams (1989). This scale asked supervisors to rate the degree to which

a subordinate fulfills the formal requirements of his or her job, and performs all

essential job duties. In addition to measuring employees in-role performance, we

also measured several extra-role or organizational citizenship behaviors

OCBs; Organ, 1988, 1990) using a modified version of the scales developed by

Pod&off and MacKenzie (1989). The items included in this scale measure all five

of the citizenship behavior dimensions identified by Organ (1988), including

altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, civic virtue, and sportsmanship. Previous

research by a number of researchers (cf. MacKenzie, Pod&off & Fetter, 1991;

Moorman, 1991, 1993; Moorman, Niehoff & Organ, 1993; Niehoff & Moor-man,

1993; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994b; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman &

Fetter, 1990; Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Fetter, 1993; Tansky, 1993) has been very

encouraging, and generally shows this scale to possess good validity and very

acceptable levels of internal consistency reliability.

Seven-point Likert scales ranging from (1) strongly disagree to

(7) strongly agree were utilized to assess all of the constructs measured in the

present study, with the exception of the 20 MSQ scale items, which were assessed

with the traditional five-point scales ranging from (1) very dissatisfied to

(5) very satisfied used in prior research (Weiss et al., 1967).

Analytical Procedures

The data analysis was conducted in three major phases. First, we investigated

the factor structure and reliability of the transformational leadership behavior

inventory developed by Pod&off et al. (1990). In the next phase of our analysis,

we examined the

aggregate

effects of the set of transformational leader behaviors

and leadership substitutes (i.e., individual, task, and organizational characteristics)

on subordinate attitudes, role perceptions, and performance, to determine which

groups of predictor variables had the greatest effects on each of the eleven criterion

variables. Finally, we examined both the main and interactive effects of the trans-

formational leader behaviors and 13 leadership substitutes on each of the criterion

variables by using hierarchical moderated regression analysis procedures (Cohen

& Cohen, 1983; Stone, 1988; Stone & Hollenbeck, 1984, 1989).

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Transformational Leadership Behavior

Inventory

Table 1 reports the completely standardized confirmatory factor loadings of

the Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory. As shown in this table, the

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 22. NO. 2. 1996



10/41

I

e

m

N

T

e

1

C

m

e

e

y

S

a

d

z

C

m

o

y

F

o

A

y

s

o

h

T

a

o

m

o

L

h

p

B

o

S

e

P

o

d

n

a

H

g

A

c

a

n

A

o

a

e

F

e

n

P

o

m

I

n

v

d

z

I

n

e

e

u

Ie

m

a

V

s

o

M

G

o

G

s

E

a

o

S

S

m

a

o

2

4

1 1

1

9

1

2

6

8

1

2

c

u

a

n

a

V

s

o

I

a

w

s

n

n

w

o

u

e

f

o

h

u

d

m

o

g

z

o

P

n

s

a

n

e

e

n

p

c

u

e

o

h

u

u

e

o

o

g

o

H

a

c

e

u

a

n

o

w

e

w

a

e

g

n

I

n

p

e

o

h

w

h

h

s

h

p

a

o

h

u

u

e

I

a

e

o

g

o

h

c

m

e

t

o

h

s

h

d

e

m

o

h

f

u

u

e

P

d

n

a

A

a

e

M

o

L

b

n

a

h

h

s

m

y

b

e

n

P

o

d

a

g

m

o

o

o

w

L

b

e

m

e

F

e

n

h

A

p

a

o

G

G

s

F

e

c

a

a

o

a

m

w

k

g

o

E

a

e

m

o

t

o

b

e

m

p

a

G

s

h

g

o

o

w

k

o

h

o

h

s

m

g

D

o

a

e

m

a

u

a

s

p

a

m

h

s

h

e

m

o

.

7

.

7

.

7

.

8

.

8

.

6

.

8

.

7

.

7

.

7

.

7

.

9

C

o

n

byguestonJune17,

2014

jom.sagepub.com

Down

loadedfrom
http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/


11/41

T

e

1

C

n

I

e

m

N

Ie

m

P

o

d

n

H

g

A

c

a

n

A

o

a

e

F

e

n

P

b

m

I

n

v

d

z

I

n

e

e

u

a

V

s

o

M

o

G

o

G

s

E

a

o

S

S

m

a

o

H

g

P

o

m

E

a

o

5

S

w

u

h

h

s

h

e

s

a

o

o

m

u

1

n

s

s

o

o

y

h

b

p

o

m

2

1

W

i

n

s

e

o

s

b

I

n

v

d

z

d

S

7

A

s

w

h

c

d

n

m

e

n

(

R

1

S

w

e

p

o

m

p

o

e

n

1

B

n

a

m

h

s

h

u

o

m

p

o

n

1

T

e

s

m

w

h

c

d

n

m

p

o

e

n

R

I

n

e

e

u

S

m

a

o

H

p

o

d

m

w

h

n

w

w

o

o

n

a

h

n

w

c

u

o

b

a

p

e

o

m

3

H

d

h

h

o

c

m

o

e

h

n

s

o

m

o

m

o

w

i

d

1

h

n

q

o

b

o

e

1

H

s

m

a

e

m

o

h

n

a

o

d

p

o

e

m

n

n

w

w

.

6

.

8

8

.

8

? F

.

=

.

7

$

.

8

h L

%

.

8

Z

.

8

Z

W

.

7

K

9

.

7

.

7

P

Y

3

.

6

.

6

.

5

,

6

.

5

byguestonJune17,

2014

jom.sagepub.com

Down

loadedfrom
http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/


12/41

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND SUBSTITUTES AS DETERMINANTS OF OCBs 269

overall fit of the six-factor model to the data was quite good, even though the x2

(df) was 965.51 (194). Bentlers (1990) comparative fit index (WI) was .94,

Bollens (1989) incremental fit index (ZZV)was .94, Joreskog and S&-borns (1993)

goodness of fit index (GFI) was .91, and Tucker and Lewiss (1973) fit index (TLZ)

was .93. In addition, each of the hypothesized factor loadings was statistically

significant at the .Ol level, all of the items had completely standardized loadings of

.60 or above, and Fomell and Larckers (198 1) measure of the average amount of

variance each latent factor accounted for in its indicators (p,,) was quite large,

ranging from 58% to 68% with an average of approximately 61%. Thus, there

appeared to be good support for the hypothesized factor structure of the transfor-

mational leadership scale. However, this was evaluated further by testing whether

any of the hypothesized factors could be combined-two, three, four, five or even

six at a time-without significantly affecting the fit of the model. The results

suggested that the hypothesized six factor model fit the data significantly better

than any of these rival models.

Scale Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations

The means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and intercorrelations of all of the

variables used in the present study are reported in Table 2. An examination of this

table indicates that the mean internal consistency reliability for the 30 constructs

used in this study was a very respectable .82, and that the reliabilities for all of the

constructs except two (need for independence, a = .69; and rewards outside the

leaders control, a = .67) reported in this table meet or exceed Nunnallys (1978)

recommended level of .70 for newly developed scales. The intercorrelations

reported in Table 2 also indicate that several of the transformational leader behav-

iors included in this study are correlated with several of the substitutes for

leadership. This underscores the importance of including both sets of variables in

leadership research if the unique contributions of the leader behaviors and substi-

tutes for leadership on the criterion variables are to be examined.

Aggregate Effects on Criterion Variables

Given the preliminary evidence described above, our analysis shifted to an

investigation of the impact of the transformational leader behaviors and substitutes

for leadership on the eleven criterion variables. The first step was to assess the

amount of variance in the criterion variables accounted for by the complete set of

leader behaviors and substitutes. This was done by regressing each of the eleven

criterion measures on the six leader behaviors and the 13 substitutes variables. The

equation for this full model is as follows:

Y, = ai + CjPijTLBj + C,P,,SUBSUB, + ~,Pi,TASKSUB, + Z,Pi,ORGSUB, + E

1)

where: Yi = the ith criterion variable (i = 1 to 11)

TLBj = the jth transformational leadership behavior (i = 1 to 6)

UBSUBk = the kth subordinate substitute variable (1 = 1 to 4)

TASKSUBt = the lth task substitute variable (m = 1 to 3)

ORGSUB, = the mth organizational substitute variable (n = 1 to 6)




13/41

T

e

2

M

S

a

d

D

a

o

R

a

e

a

n

e

c

e

a

o

o

T

a

o

m

o

L

B

o

S

u

e

f

o

L

h

p

a

S

d

n

e

C

e

o

V

a

e

k

a

e

M

S

D

A

p

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

I

1

T

o

m

o

L

B

h

o

I

A

c

a

n

a

V

s

o

2

P

o

d

n

a

A

o

a

e

M

3

F

e

n

h

A

a

o

G

o

G

s

4

H

g

P

o

m

E

a

o

5

n

v

d

z

S

6

n

e

e

u

S

m

a

o

S

u

e

o

L

h

p

7

A

y

E

e

T

a

n

n

K

w

e

8

P

o

e

o

O

e

a

o

9

n

e

e

t

o

R

w

d

1

N

o

n

I

T

k

F

1

R

n

T

k

1

n

n

c

y

S

s

y

n

T

k

1

O

g

z

o

F

m

z

o

1

O

g

z

o

I

n

e

b

y

1

A

s

o

y

S

a

S

1

C

v

G

o

1

R

w

d

O

s

d

L

C

o

1

S

a

D

s

a

C

e

o

V

a

e

2

M

Q

G

a

S

s

a

o

2

O

g

z

o

C

m

m

2

T

u

n

L

2

R

e

C

a

y

2

R

e

C

c

2

n

R

e

P

o

m

2

A

u

s

m

2

C

e

o

n

2

S

s

m

h

p

2

C

e

v

5

0

I

2

.

8

5

0

1

4

.

8

5

2

1

3

.

8

5

3

1

2

.

8

4

8

1

5

.

9

4

9

1

2

.

8

5

8

1

0

.

7

3

4

1

8

.

9

3

3

1

5

.

7

4

7

1

3

.

6

4

9

I

3

.

8

3

6

1

6

.

8

5

4

1

3

.

9

3

8

1

5

.

7

4

2

1

4

.

8

5

2

1

4

.

7

5

3

1

2

.

8

2

2

1

1

.

6

4

0

1

8

.

7

3

8

5

2

5

5

5

2

4

0

5

8

5

5

5

8

5

4

5

3

3

C

v

c

V

5

3

0

5

.

8

1

0

.

9

1

2

.

8

1

1

.

8

1

0

.

7

1

1

.

9

0

9

.

8

0

9

.

8

1

2

.

8

1

1

.

8

0

9

.

2

2

.

6

- - -

.

6

.

6

-

.

4

.

4

.

3

-

.

4

.

5

.

4

.

2

.

6

.

5

.

4

.

4

.

3 -

.

o

.

0

.

0

.

0

.

0

-

O

.

O

.

O

.

0

.

0

.

0

.

0

.

0

- -

-

3

.

0

.

3

-

0

-

2

.

0

.

3

-

0

-

2

.

0

.

3

-

o

1

-

5

.

0

.

2

-

0

-

2

.

0

.

3

-

0

-

2

.

0

.

2

-

0

.0

p

0 -

.

2

.

0

.

0

.

8

.

0

-

3

.

0

-

.

0

-

0

.

2

:

.

9

F

-

1

-

7

- -

- - -

C

n

byguestonJune17,

2014

jom.sagepub.com

Downloadedfrom
http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/http://jom.sagepub.com/


14/41

T

e

2

C

n

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

T

a

o

m

o

L

B

h

o

I

A

c

a

n

a

V

s

o

.

2

.

2

.

9

.

0

.

2

-

2

-

2

.

4

.

3

.

5

.

3

-

1

.

7

.

7

.

1

.

2

.

1

.

0

2

P

o

d

n

a

A

o

a

e

M

.

2

.

2

.

7

.

0

.

2

-

0

-1

.

4

.

2

6

.

3

-

2

.

2

.

1

.

1

.

1

.

2

.

0

3

F

e

n

h

A

a

o

G

o

G

s

.

2

.

2

.

1

.

0

.

3

-

0

-

O

.

4

.

2

.

5

.

3

-

2

.

2

.

1

.

1

.

1

.

1

.

0

4

H

g

P

o

m

E

a

o

.

2

.

6

.

2

.

0

.

2

-

1

-

0

.

2

.

2

.

2

.

2

-

0

.

0

.

0

.

0

.

0

.

1

.

0

5

n

v

d

z

S

.

1

.

1

.

0

.

0

.

1

.

o

-

.

4

.

2

.

5

.

3

-

2

.

2

.

2

.

1

.

1

.

3

.

1

6

n

e

e

u

S

m

a

o

.

2

.

1

.

4

.

1

.

1

-

-1

.

3

.

2

.

4

.

2

-

0

.

3

.

1

.

1

.

.

1

.

0

S

u

e

o

L

h

p

7

A

y

E

e

T

a

n

n

K

w

e

.

2

.

0

.

0

.

1

.

6

-

0

.

3

.

5

.

1

.

0

.

2

.

1

.

0

.

0

.

0

-

0

-

O

.

0

8

P

o

e

o

O

e

a

o

.

0

.

1

.

0

.

O

.

0

-

0

.

0

.

0

.

0

.

O

.

0

.

0

-

0

-

0

-

O

-

0

-

0

.

0

9

n

e

e

t

o

R

w

d

-

3

p

1

-

2

-

0

-

2

.

0

.

0

-

5

-

5

-

3

-

2

.

2

-

1

-

1

-

2

-

2

-

8

-

1

1

N

o

n

.

0

.

0

.

0

p

0

.

0

.

o

.

0

.

0

.

o

.

0

.

-

0

.

0

-

O

.

O

.

O

.

O

p

0

1

T

k

F

.

4

.

3

.

2

.

1

.

2

-

0

-

0

.

5

.

3

.

4

.

5

-

2

.

2

.

1

.

2

.

6

.

1

.

1

1

R

n

T

k

-

3

-

3

.

1

p

0

-

1

-

0

.

0

-

2

p

1

-

0

.

o

-

0

-

-

1

-

1

-

1

-

1

-

2

1

n

n

c

y

S

s

y

n

T

k

-

.

1

.

2

.

1

.

2

p

0

.

0

.

6

.

4

.

2

.

4

-

1

.

6

.

2

.

1

.

1

.

5

.

1

1

O

g

z

o

F

m

z

o

-

_

.

3

.

0

.

1

.

O

-

0

.

2

.

2

.

1

.

4

-

2

.

0

.

O

.

0

-

O

.

0

-

0

1

O

g

z

o

I

n

e

b

y

-

-

_

.

0

.

2

-

0

-

O

.

3

.

3

.

2

.

3

-

2

.

0

.

0

.

1

.

.

O

.

0

Z

1

1

C

v

A

s

o

y

S

a

S

-

-

~

_

-

_

_

_

.

1

_

-

0

-

0

.

O

.

O

.

J

O

.

1

.

2

.

O

.

3

.

0

.

2

.

0

-

2

.

2

-

O

.

3

-

O

.

4

.

0

.

O

.

5

.

O

-

O

.

6

.

0

.

0

$

1

R

w

d

O

s

d

G

o

L

C

o

-

-O

-

0

-

-

0

-

0

-

0

-

0

-

0

-

O

p

0

-

0

-

%

1

S

a

D

s

a

-

_

_

~

_

_

_

-

0

p

0

-

1

-

0

.

2

-

0

-

0

-

0

-

O

-

0

-

0

F

C

e

o

V

a

e

2

G

a

S

s

a

o

M

Q

O

g

z

o

C

m

m

-

~

_

-

_

_

~

_

.

5

.

5

.

5

p

3

.

2

.

2

.

2

.

2

.

2

.

7

2

2

-

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

.

4

.

5

-

9

.

1

.

1

.

1

.

1

.

1

.

1

$

2

T

u

n

L

-

_

_

.

4

-

2

.

1

.

.

1

.

0

.

2

.

0

3

2

R

e

C

a

y

-

_

_

_

_

-

1

-

-

0

-

0

-

1

-

0

.

0

z

2

R

e

C

c

-

_

_

_

~

.

2

.

2

.

2

.

2

.

2

.

7

.

2

n

R

e

P

o

m

_

.

5

.

6

.

5

.

5

.

5

3

22

A

u

s

m

C

e

o

n

-

_

_

_

_

_

-

~

_

_

_

.

6

.

5

.

4

.

6

.

5

.

5

.

5

.

k

2

S

s

m

h

p

-

_

5

.

3

2

C

e

y

C

v

c

V

u

-

~

_

_

_

_

.

4

5

3

.

Y

N

e

W

h

h

e

o

o

h

c

n

w

c

o

o

h

p

o

m

m

u

e

s

v

a

h

c

e

o

v

a

e

N

=

1

n

h

c

w

e

o

o

h

p

o

m

Y

m

u

e

s

v

a

h

c

e

o

v

a

e

N

=

1

W

N

=

1

c

e

a

o

c

c

e

s

r

e

e

a

o

a

0

a

e

s

g

c

a

p

journal of management 1996 podsakoff 259 98

Documents